My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-02-2006
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
08-02-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2018 10:13:14 AM
Creation date
8/30/2018 10:12:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/2/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Ord 773 Report <br />August 2, 2006 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />7) The following is excerpted from what Valerie Amundsen read Monday, June 26, 2006 at the City <br />Council meeting: <br /> <br />“Regarding section 1103.08 subd. 3, item b: The ordinance suggests that there be no setback <br />requirement for retaining walls. I would suggest however, that the following wording be added after <br />the words “but shall not otherwise be subject to a setback requirement"…UNLESS THE SAID <br />RETAINING WALL WILL BE DIRECTLY NEXT TO AN EXISTING FENCE SPECIFICALLY <br />INSTALLED TO MEET THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRING A MINIMUM 5 FOOT HIGH FENCE <br />AROUND A SWIMMING POOL” <br /> <br />Staff Response: Staff has discussed this point with both the Planning Commission and <br />City Council, and neither body supported such a requirement. While the intent of the <br />suggested change is understood, Staff, the City Attorney, the Planning Commission and <br />Council felt it was not appropriate to restrict what one property owner could do with his <br />or her lot because of what a neighbor has already done. In this case, because <br />Neighbor “A” has a swimming pool, it would not seem fair or appropriate to impose or <br />subject more restrictive setback requirements onto Neighbor “B”, who does not have a <br />swimming pool. The responsibility for maintaining the minimum fence height and <br />security requirements should always rest with the property owner with the pool. <br /> <br />Summary: <br /> <br />While we thank the Amundsens for their suggestions and appreciate their level of <br />involvement throughout this process, Staff and the City Attorney do not feel any of the <br />suggested changes are warranted or desired at this time. <br /> <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />After review and consideration of the suggestions, if the Commission determines that no <br />changes are necessary, staff will bring the original ordinance back to the City Council for <br />reconsideration at their meeting on August 14th. If the Commission believes some <br />modifications are in order, staff will prepare a resolution incorporating such changes and <br />have it available for your action on August 16 with final ordinance action before the City <br />Council on August 28th. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />_____________________________________ <br />James Ericson <br />Community Development Director
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.